ORDER : I.A. No.2045 of 2016 An interlocutory application bearing no.2045 of 2016 has been filed at the instance of the appellant with prayer to implead the Regional Passport Officer, Ranchi in the instant appeal as party respondent no.2 and after impleading direct the said authority to issue passport in favour of the present appellant which has been 'on hold' by the said authority with remarks 'court direction for issuance of passport as court case is pending'. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel, Mr. Deo appearing for the C.B.I. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Rajendra Krishna appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/and also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5000/with default clause where after he was granted provisional bail by the court below and subsequently on filing this appeal after admission of appeal, the privilege of bail granted to the appellant was made absolute. It was also submitted that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant filed the instant interlocutory application on the ground that his younger son Parimal Kumar is residing in Brooklyn, New York along with his wife Ruma Kumari and the said daughter-in-law, Ruma Kumari is on family way and is expecting a twin and the expected date of delivery is 28.08.2016 but as her pregnancy is through IVF pregnancy mode, she needs more precautions than the normal delivery and she has been advised by the doctor attending her in USA to go for complete bed rest for three months before delivery. Learned counsel further submitted that since there is no other family member in USA along with his younger son and daughter-in-law, she requested the appellant and his wife i.e. the mother-in-law, to join her in New York and stay with them for at least six month during the period of her pregnancy. In support of his contention, learned counsel has enclosed medical certificate granted by the treating doctor as Annexure1/1 and 1/2. In support of his contention, learned counsel has enclosed medical certificate granted by the treating doctor as Annexure1/1 and 1/2. Learned counsel further submitted that after receiving the said request letter of daughter-in-law since he had no passport, he applied before the passport authority for grant of passport to visit USA but the same has been kept 'on hold' with remarks 'court direction for issuance of passport as court case is pending'. Whereafter, the instant application has been filed with prayer to direct the passport authority to issue the passport. Learned counsel further submitted that under Sub section 2 (e) of Section 6 of Passport Act, the power has been given to the passport authority to refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country if the person who has applied for grant of passport, has been convicted by a court in India for not less than two years for any offence involving moral turpitude at any time during the period of five years and in the light of the aforesaid provision the passport authority has kept the passport of the appellant on hold. The appellant is ready to furnish any undertaking and assures that he will not abscond and come back to India and inform the court of his presence in India. Learned counsel by filing details of his son Vimal Kumar, who is working as Deputy Director, Central Water Commission, New Delhi, submitted that the said son of appellant is also ready to file an undertaking that the appellant will not misuse the privilege of the permission to go to USA. Learned counsel has also enclosed an affidavit filed by the daughter-in-law, Ruma Kumari sworn before Notary Public, State of New York which is enclosed as Annexure6 with supplementary affidavit in this interlocutory application. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. Deo appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer relying upon Section 6 of Section 2(e) of Passport Act but no counter affidavit has been filed at the instance of C.B.I. 5. For better appreciation of the issue involved in this interlocutory application, a reference of the relevant extract of Section 6 of Passport Act is necessary which reads as follows: (6) Refusal of passports, travel documents. For better appreciation of the issue involved in this interlocutory application, a reference of the relevant extract of Section 6 of Passport Act is necessary which reads as follows: (6) Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground namely- (a) …................. (b) …................. (c) …................. (d) …................. (2) Subject to other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely- (a) …................. (b) …................. (c) …................. (d) …................. (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) …................. (g) …................. (h) …................. (i) …................. 6. Apparently, the passport authority under the above statute has power to refuse or grant passport if a person is convicted but the appellant when convicted by the court below in the year 2011, was 65 years of age and by now he is more than 70 years old and nothing has been brought on record by the counsel of C.B.I. to show that there is any apprehension that the appellant will abscond the moment he is granted permission to go abroad. On perusal of Annexure 1/1 and 1/2 enclosed with this interlocutory application which are medical prescriptions granted by the attending/treating doctor of New York, USA clearly speaks of that the daughter-in-law of the appellant has undergone IVF pregnancy mode and is a case of twin pregnancy and the date of expected delivery is 28.08.2016. I find that the prayer of the appellant reasonably requires consideration by this Court. The Regional Passport Authority, Ranchi has kept on hold the passport of the appellant and has not granted the said passport on the ground that the appellant has been convicted by competent court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 7. I find that the prayer of the appellant reasonably requires consideration by this Court. The Regional Passport Authority, Ranchi has kept on hold the passport of the appellant and has not granted the said passport on the ground that the appellant has been convicted by competent court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 7. Without discussing the merit of the case, the appellant is directed to file an undertaking in the court concerned and appear in court below on or before 26.05.2006 with following terms and conditions: (i) The appellant will not misuse the privilege of permission to go to USA and appear before the court below on or before 16.09.2016. (ii) His son Vimal Kumar, who is working as Deputy Director, Central Water Commission, New Delhi will also file an undertaking on or before the above date i.e. 26.05.2016 to the effect that his father will come back to India and appear before the court concerned on or before 16.09.2016 and in case of any violation in the terms of undertaking, he shall be liable for his prosecution. (iii) The appellant is directed to produce the certified copy of the order of the court below regarding filing of his undertaking and his son's undertaking before Regional Passport Authority, Ranchi. (iv) The Regional Passport Authority, Ranchi on filing of the above said certified copy of the order of the court below showing the undertakings filed by the appellant and his son and being satisfied with other requirements for issuance of passport shall issue the passport in favour of the appellant. 8. If the appellant fails to appear before the court concerned on the date fixed i.e. on or before 16.09.2016, the court concerned shall proceed in accordance with law and cancel the bail bonds and issue non-bailable warrant against the appellant and his son. 9. The appellant is also directed to file Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/alongwith the above undertaking which shall be released by the court below immediately after his return from abroad but if the appellant fails to appear before the court on or before the above date, the bank guarantee shall be fore fitted. 10. Accordingly, I.A. No.2045 of 2016 is disposed of.